ARSHAD and others vs THE STATE
The present matter arises from a criminal bail application filed by the applicants seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 324, 353, and 186/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Nazimabad. The core legal question concerns whether the applicants are entitled to post-arrest bail where they were apprehended at the spot but the allegations of firing at the police party require further inquiry, particularly given that no injuries or bullet marks were sustained by either party. The court held that the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting parity with precedent and the lack of opposition from the Additional Advocate-General. Consequently, the court admitted the applicants to bail subject to sureties. The key principle laid down is that where firing from inside a vehicle at a police party without resulting in any injuries or vehicle damage renders the precise role and occurrence doubtful, the case warrants further inquiry for the purpose of bail.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when allegations of firing at a police party result in no injuries or vehicle damage?
- Does a case require further inquiry under criminal law when prosecution witnesses are solely police officials and independent corroboration is absent?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 186, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' The present applicant is facing trial before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Central Karachi for offences under sections 324, 353 and 186/34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Nazimabad. The applicant filed bail application before the trial Court which was rejected, hence the present bail application.
2. ' According to prosecution case on 23-6-1999, the S.H.O. Of Police Station Nazimabad was on petrol duty in the area when at about 1-50 p.m. He saw three persons in Suzuki Margala with Registration No,GS-0772 in suspicious condition. The S.H.O. Police gave signal to them to stop the car but in spite of stopping the car, the three persons sitting in the car started firing at the Policy Party. Police also fired in self-defence. It is further said that the Police Party succeeded to apprehend the present three applicants with unlicensed weapons and were brought at the Police Station and case was registered after usual investigation and thereafter, the case was challaned.
3. ' The learned counsel for the applicant contends that in spite of exchange of fires nobody received the injury from the accused side nor from the complainant party and that neither the Police mobile nor the vehicle said to be with the applicants were hit by the bullet and it is also further contended that the empties said to be secured by the Police from accused's car also did not appear probable as no firing could be made at the Police Party while sitting in the car. The learned counsel lastly contended that all the prosecution witnesses are Police Officials except one person who is also not resident of the same locality.
4. ' The learned counsel in support of his contention has relied upon the case of Abdul Ghafoor and others v. The State, reported in 1996 PCr.LJ 1573 in the reported case the applicants with almost identical story were granted bail by a D.B. Of this Court.
5. ' The learned A.A.-G. States that the case of the applicants require further inquiry, and therefore, he has no objection if the applicant is granted bail.
6. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and also A.A.- G. Admittedly the applicants are alleged to have been apprehended at the spot but as far as firing by the applicants at Police Party is concerned it required further inquiry. The case-law relied by the learned counsel appears to be applicable as in the said case the applicants were arrested at the spot and they were also alleged the firing at the Police party. In view of the case-law and no objection by the learned A.A.-G. The applicants are admitted to bail subject to furnishing of one surety by each applicant in the sum of Rs,200,000 (Rupees two lacs) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. This Criminal Bail Application No,923 of 1999 stands disposed of.